Re: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 6:11 AM Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 1:37 PM Aryeh Friedman <aryehfriedman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 5:16 AM Felix Palmen <zirias@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp> [20240218 17:49]:
> > > > [a lot about automotive regulations]
> > >
> > > That's a nice example how comparisons of entirely different domains
> > > almost always go completely wrong.
> >
> > I guess you have never heard of software engineering?
> >
> > Also the OP is 100% right there is a lot of "brokenish" in the ports
> > community for example no maintainer should ever be banned from -ports@
> > but I have been for reasons never explained to me and thus am at a
> > severe disadvantage when asking for help (like how to switch from yacc
> > to bison without errors and such).
> >
> > >
> > > To start with, cars (and especially individual parts) typically aren't
> > > subject to consumer customizations, and if they are, it's way outside
> > > the manufacturer's responsibility.  Here, we were talking about breakage
> > > that only happened when you customized your port builds. We aren't
> > > talking about security-relevant breakage either.
> >
> > Yes they are customized all the time. What do you think "options"?
> > (same for planes.)
> >
> > And sadly (speaking as the maintainer of 3 different ports
> > [devel/aegis, devel/fhist, devel/tailor and when I get time to
> > unbreaking it and taking maintership devel/cook]) there has to good
> > customizations that can be done after market without breaking the
> > ports (for example we use the actual tools above significantly then
> > how they where designed to be used but due to being the maintainer
> > still need to maintain the orginal behavior also)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > As explained in the PR as well, of course we add (temporary) workarounds
> > > to *individual* ports when it seems necessary. We certainly don't add
> > > workarounds to the framework itself unless it's perfectly clear there
> > > will be no other way. Not even considering yet that just fiddling with
> > > CFLAGS has the potential to break a lot of other things when done
> > > globally.
> >
> > The framework has been broken for a long time. It should not require
> > prodiere running on a supermassive machine to work (in many cases
> > portmaster and make install recursion fail where prodiere works).
>
> It does not. The thing is: contributor submissions should be buildable
> in Poudriere because this is the way official packages are produced.
> You are free to build on the host locally, but it hides some errors
> which then break the build on our cluster. Without Poudriere you just
> have to be more cautious and perform more thorough testing.

Wonderful: Are we now moving to the binary pkg only for mere mortals
then.  For example my desktop is a fairly standard 12 core machine
with 24 GB of RAM and plenty of disk space (on SSD's) but yet Proudrie
slows the machine down so much that xorg becomes unresponsive or the
machine used for any other purpose (yes I know this can be customized
to make it work but that *SHOULD NOT* be the default case).   One
reason I started with FreeBSD in the first place and not linsucks is
it is/(was?!?!?) completely buildable from source (including 3d party
packages) on a completely normal desktop (at least til about 2018 and
I started using FreeBSD in 1993).

So when is it going to be possible for a mere mortal like the machine
above to use portmaster or recursive make install since Poudrie is a
machine killer